To The Editor:
Reps. Grace Meng, Assemblymen David Weprin and Michael Simanowitz, as well as City Council members Karen Koslowitz and Rory Lanceman, all oppose President Barack Obama’s proposed Iranian deal. They of course are entitled to their opinion, but one would expect in view of the unacceptable current situation, statements that set forth reasonable alternatives, without which a blanket rejection is meaningless.
If Congress rejects the proposed deal, it is likely Russia, China and possibly Germany will no longer support sanctions, a result which in my opinion would be far more ominous than the deal proposed. With regard to the deal itself, there are adequate safeguards to deal with any Iranian deviation. Sanctions initially introduced were with reference to nuclear bomb capability and not with regard to other issues which cannot and should not be introduced at this time and be the basis of opposition.Those issues can best be pursued at a later date and particularly if the current deal shows promise.
As to those who oppose the agreement it should be noted sixty percent of Iranians are under the age of 35 years, well educated, worldly and involved in twenty-first century technology and it is unlikely they would have any significant interest in fundamentalism. As to those who claim Iran cannot be trusted notwithstanding agreement safeguards, it should be noted we are talking about a 10-15 year period. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the author of inflammatory statements, will shortly be 76 years old and his death will herald far different generational thinking. Israel is the strongest military power in the area, possesses nuclear capability and will always have America’s military support if needed. I think the agreement when all is said and done, will be in its best interest. The status quo is unacceptable, agreements must always initially deal with compromise and it makes sense to take advantage of an opportunity that may well result in a far better world. We lose nothing by giving the agreement a chance to succeed.